Posted
by
Soulskillon Saturday June 04, 2011 @06:02PM
from the don't-shoot-or-we'll-shoot dept.

HungryHobo writes with this excerpt from a story at Pixiq:
"Miami Beach police did their best to destroy a citizen video that shows them shooting a man to death in a hail of bullets on Memorial Day. First, police pointed their guns at the man who shot the video, according to a Miami Herald interview with the videographer. Then they ordered the man and his girlfriend out of the car and threw them down to the ground, yelling, 'you want to be f****** paparazzi?' Then they snatched the cell phone from his hand and slammed it to the ground before stomping on it. Then they placed the smashed phone in the videographer's back pocket as he was laying down on the ground."

You've put your finger on the source of the inevitable problem. Given the job, you're guaranteed to get this kind of person showing up at least occasionally; just like you get BOfH sysadmins, Wall Street attracts get-rich-quick schemers, the lawsuits attract ambulance-chasers.

The critical question isn't whether these things happen; they will. The critical question is how they organization responds. What will happen to these police, and the department that they work for? Will they be fired and never allowed to work in law enforcement again? Will there be a review of the attitudes of the police department to see if there are other systematic violations of rights, or a failure to provide adequate training or incentives to uphold the law (rather than abuse it for personal gain)? Or will they be given a slap on the wrist, and business continue as usual?

If there are consequences, then it won't be as attractive to this kind of person; or, this kind of person will control themselves because they know there will be consequences. If there aren't consequences, you're going to attract a whole lot more of this kind of person.

The real trick is to post everything directly to "The Cloud". Yes, yes, I hate the term as much as the average/.-er, but in this case it's extraordinarily useful. Destroying the device doesn't destroy the data, and you also have a record of the destruction. There's a good reason for decent systems to keep off-site (ideally off-continent) records.

The real trick is to post everything directly to "The Cloud".... Destroying the device doesn't destroy the data, and you also have a record of the destruction.

This is what happened at the Democratic Convention protests in Chicago in 1968.

Chicago was a machine-run city and the police were able to keep pictures of their misdeeds out of the newspapers by seizing and/or smashing the photographers' cameras. In preparation for the convention (and the pre-announced protests) the machine's unions had prevented the stringing of video cabling to likely protest sites.

But this was the first serious deployment of the "minicam" by the three networks' news operations. It was a massive shoulder-mounted camera, feeding a backpack full of electronics and batteries, radio-linked to a truck full of equipment within a block or two that relayed it to the studio. But it worked. And Chicago was a main switching/mixing/studio center for all three networks' transcontinental feeds.

So the police, with orders to keep things out of the media, did their standard smash-the-camera number (like they did when the local newsies got ouf-of-line and tried to report on them). And when the police batons smashed a camera lens the image, from the lens' viewpoint, was already out of the camera and into living rooms nationwide.

With the improvements in video camera technology - first the personal portable video camera, then the inclusion of cameras and video-record functionaltiy in most modern cellphones - the bulk of the population has been in a position to play Chicago News Cameraman. "Who watches the watchmen?" can now be answered "All of us!" Since the Rodney King incident the police have been hunting for ways to suppress this coverage. And this bunch seems to have settled on the pre-minicam Chicago Police approach. In this case the camara man managed to extract and protect the "film". But the real solution is the same as it was in '68: Real time upload to external archive and/or live publication. You hit it dead-on.

Fortunately the pieces of that are now available as stock products (minor assembly required). Smartphone plus applet for live streaming to archive and/or social-network/video publication. The readers' letters attached to TFA name at least two such applets: QIK (and QIK Plus) and Ustream.

Obviously the other extreme is when all regulation disappears and the sharks feast on the small fish. The rich get richer and the gap between rich and poor grows enormously. As a student of history you also understand what happens next.....The French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and today the Arab Spring....Don't think for a moment that any of those societies ended up better off.

Unfortunately those who want to cut all the social programs which attempt to equalize society, also want to spend the most on big brother technologies to keep the masses in line. I would rather pay my share to make sure people are not hungry, and have at least adequate medical care. Go visit India sometime if you want to see a society that has no social safety net....not a pretty sight seeing kids grow up under underpasses.

See, you were making a pretty good argument, and then you threw in this:

Is anyone willing to *personally* take a good working-over by government thugs in exchange for another social program? (emphasis mine).

It's not the social programs that empower the goon squads. The US government currently has 17 civilian agencies that have agents empowered to carry fully automatic weapons. There is a line item in the federal budget equal to about half the overall FBI budget, and it goes just to pay for the FBI running rifle, grenade launcher, and even rocket launcher training ranges for all the other security related agencies. Those are not the social services agencies that have the police like powers. A person from the department of health and human resources may be able to take one of your kids away, but at least he or she can't shoot you in the head to stop you from getting a lawyer and fighting it. The BATF, DEA, and 15 other police/security related agencies most definitely can.

Right now, you can take the amount that goes to Israel out of the foreign aid budget, and half the rest is directed by the DEA. For example, we give multiple squadrons of assault helicopters to Columbia to 'help stamp out Cocaine trafficking, add attack helicopters and air to ground Hellfire missiles to protect them, current elite grade scrambling to keep the drug lords from overhearing their communications, and many other forms of support, and then all their neighbors worry about what happens if Columbia uses all those neat toys for something besides the war on drugs, so we have to give the rest of Central America weapons too. If they don't have enough Cocaine growers to justify putting it in the DEA budget, we put it in foreign aid, earmarked to be spent only buying weapons from US based corporations. Then we have right wing radio show hosts frequently stress how foreign aid is all a liberal waste of money. (Yeah, because the Liberals are the ones who support a huge war on drugs.). Many of us strongly suspect there's still funding for covert ops hidden in the social services side of the budget, but it's a pretty safe bet nobody in, say, the National Endowment for the Arts is hiding money in the Military/Security part of the budget. The reverse however, is false - it has now been openly admitted that the CIA funneled money through the Nat. Endowment for the Arts for covert ops in the 1950s and 60s.

Please don't fall for the idea that we have to cut social services to control the government - the power and arrogance they contribute to the whole is so trivial compared to the effects of all those agencies grouped under homeland security that eliminating all social spending would probably have less effect on the nation's slide into fascism than finding out why anyone else in the Treasury department, besides the Secret Service, needs full auto weapons training. (I'm willing to grant we need something like a Secret Service to protect various officials from nutcases - but why does a guy who's full time job description is to investigate insider trading, a guy who is required to be a CPA before qualifying for the job, but need have absolutely no military or law enforcement background, need to qualify on a M16-A4 assault rifle with under-mounted M203 grenade launcher?). Multiply that by all the agents for BATF that are not investigating firearms or even the few remaining old fashioned stills in the Kentucky hills, but need them for all those cases where someone is smuggling cigarettes without tax stamps - surely a few pistols or assistance from a federal marshall or two would be enough to handle such cases. Multiply by all the small towns that now have used federal grants for SWAT teams even if the most serious crime in a typical year there is likely to be a bar fight.

The goons are busy protecting private property and the wealthy who own them. Absent the government, they'd skip the middle man and simply hire goons to get rid of people they find disagreeable with a lot more impunity.

whenever the government is given control of more wealth and power to legislate & regulate...that's the same as saying they want more of this crap like this videographer received

EXACTLY! The action of these cops is DIRECTLY related to the growth of government! We should return to a time of smaller government - say, the 1950s or even the early 1900s - when police in the US deep South never abused anybody. I think we can all recall how much better the cops - and government in the South in general - behaved before that darned Federal government started getting so big. In fact, instead of shooting a guy and destroying evidence, they probably would have sat down and had a nice discussion together over grits and chicory, if it weren't for the insidious creation of the Department of Health and Human Services which turned them into jerks.

Any government big enough to have local police forces is big enough to do this. There's a reason we talk about "police states" rather than "bureaucrat states" or "social worker states".
This has nothing to do with big government or little government--police brutality would still be a problem in a minarchist state.

Local police who are locally funded and controlled by local officials can only go so far before the other local citizens take their power and wealth away and replace them with better police with better, less-abusive policies.

And this astounding theory is based on... what? Local police can become locally corrupt and start doing the bidding of local politicians and local wealthy people. And they have done that.

When law enforcement gets a large amount of funding, receive orders, and follow policies and directives from a large central government, then local law enforcement loses accountability to their local populations.

Historically, it's the federal government that has curbed corruption and excesses in local and state police.

In this case, you don't seriously believe that anybody would lift a finger locally to get these people their camera phone back.

Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. See definition of “oral communication,” Fla. Stat. ch. 934.02. See also Stevenson v. State, 667 So.2d 410 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996); Paredes v. State, 760 So.2d 167 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000).

If you're a US citizen, one estimate I've seen is that you're subject to 40,000+ pages of Federal, state, and local laws. You may absolutely rest assured that you have broken more than one of them today, probably before you even got out of bed this morning. As have I.

I'm willing to consider moving. But, could you kindly point me in the direction of an English speaking country that is, well, not going in this direction or already there? Canada, Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand all seem to be in varying states of going down the loo. I know broken bits of French, Spanish, German, and Japanese. But, nothing I can get by on.

That's also the reason why you're still free to go wherever you want. There's nowhere to run. Back when the Soviet Union still existed, the US had to keep up the facade of a liberal, free country where you may be what and how you want to be, where your privacy and your rights are protected by the government and not trampled on. Which of course meant that whoever could rub two brain cells together in the East wanted out, towards the free West. That way, as odd as it may sound, the Soviet Union protected us from our own government. Because the very last thing any country could want is that its best and brightest have nothing in their mind than plotting how to leave.

Back when the Soviet Union still existed, the US had to keep up the facade of a liberal, free country where you may be what and how you want to be, where your privacy and your rights are protected by the government and not trampled on

To be fair, though, this was also the era of Hoover's FBI and the Red Scare. We had no business claiming to be any better than the Soviets as long as we had institutions with names like the "House Unamerican Activities Committee."

There's plenty of stupid fascist bullshit going on today in America and I'm never reluctant to bitch about it on Slashdot... but honestly, I suspect things were even worse for most of the country's modern history. Don't let a misplaced sense of nostalgia obscure the progress that has been made over the last several decades.

You absolutely can. "Against the law" has nothing to do with convictions and punishment. We entrust (and pay) these police officers to enforce the law, and yet when they clearly break the law it's a LOT harder to get anyone to prosecute, let alone convict them. They'll probably get suspended WITH pay, and at best fired, more likely fined. The chances of them getting convicted of an actual crime are pretty low...

Make destruction of potential evidence of negligence or abuse by a police officer a felony with mandatory jail time (ie. worse than the original crime) and you will make them think twice. In fact, make felony crimes by police officers equivalent to laws that double sentences for crimes committed with a gun. They have a gun, and if they committed and are convicted of a crime, what's the difference?

"Arresting someone if you aren't a police officer would be kidnapping. If a speeder simply could escape by driving 10 mph over the speed limit and the cop never being able to catch up then it would be all but impossible to enforce speed limit laws."

which would be a fine argument if they weren't explicitly allowed to do those things.Police are granted a great deal of additional rights and powers to enforce the law.It's only sensible that they should be punished more severely if they abuse that power.

this isn't "whoops, I lost control of the police car during a high speed chase and hurt someone" or "damn, I aimed at the bad guy but missed and hit some poor sod"

this is explicitly attacking someone and trying to destroy evidence.That isn't a little mistake.That isn't something that just happens when you're trying to enforce the law.

You can give your witness report 10 minutes later somewhere private, on the other hand if a cop was beating the shit out of you for the crime of being black then you'd probably welcome the guy with the video camera.

I had trouble Googling the incident myself until I added "Raymond Herisse" (the name of the man who died) to my searches.

It turns out he's been IDed as the suspect in an armed robbery attempt from earlier in the weekend and police tried to pull him over (no idea if it's because of the robbery or another reason), but rather than stop, he rammed a police cruiser and tried to run over at least one officer on foot.

So considering him a threat? Sure. I buy that. If what they say is true he demonstrated that he was a threat.

But from the video I saw, it seems that they shot at him on a crowded street. The car stops, and cops approach it. Then a few seconds later the 6 or so officers I could see all appear to not just fire, but unload their guns into the car.

Did the suspect draw a weapon? That would explain that kind of action, but the video I saw doesn't show that.

I can imagine a scenario where the cops do everything right and bystanders get hit when shots are fired. I can perhaps even forgive them for unloading their weapons. Adrenalin, and all that. I've never been there. Still, all the stars have to be aligned perfectly for me to believe that 4 bystanders got hit and it happened with the cops doing everything right.

Nothing however explains the confiscation of cameras and assaulting of bystanders. There *is* no reason I can dream up that is anything other than a criminal act on the part of the police.

The ACLU is investigating apparently, and rightly they should.

Even more troubling, is I can find no evidence that any officers have even been suspended. Though apparently there were officers from multiple departments involved.

The video sucks though, so let me explain what I see blow by blow. I may be wrong, about some of this as it's hard to see.

The video starts, and I can't even see the car.At about 3 seconds shots ring out. The source of them is unclear, but there is on report of shots coming from anywhere other than the officers.

At about 5 seconds the car halts near the intersection on the right.

Men approach the car cautiously with guns drawn. Presumably they are the police.

The officers surround the car which is now stopped. There is no additional sign of activity. The car doesn't move any further.

Then at 1:13ish many, many shots ring out. Far more than the number of shots that rang out before. Definitely multiple officers discharging lots of rounds.

The question is why? What were they reacting to?

Reiterating what I said before: If what the suspect supposedly did is true, and the cops are telling the truth that he fled and tried to run them over and refused to stop one can make the argument that the shots at 0:03 could have been justified.

But no shots were fired again until 1:13, and then they unloaded. What changed? If he didn't draw a weapon or make an overt threat, there's no reason. He had been stopped. The shots at 0:03 either hit him, or scared him into stopping.

I have no idea what the first half of your second paragraph is talking about. Sadly, I suspect that there have been too many journalists killed in war zones recently to know which "Reuters guy" you are referring to.

That said, I suspect your analysis of why this happened may be pretty close to the mark. Something along the lines of:

Stressed cops from this big, hard to control event get confronted with a real threat: an officer is nearly run down in a motor vehicle stop. Everyone's on edge, and the suspect is trying to get away. A gunfight ensues. Everyone is keyed up. And bad calls get made.

Further evidence of this is that there was another shooting later in the same night. A female officer who claims a different suspect was trying to run her over too.

It's not an excuse, or a defense. But I think this didn't just happen. These cops were driven to an edge. They did what they thought they had to do, but then they took things too far. I suspect a lot of these things happen in similar ways.

I'm sure they'll wrap it in a better sounding decision, but essentially, yes.

The job itself isn't really all that fun. You're dealing with people from the beginning of your shift, to the end of your shift, who all hate you. Everyone from traffic cops writing tickets, to special crime units, their job is to enforce the law, which means someone you encounter is going to get the shit end of the stick.

I have never heard anyone sincerely say "Well thank you for stopping me officer. I wasn't aware that I was going 5 miles per hour over the speed limit. I really appreciate it that you have given me this $150 reminder to slow down. Have a beautiful day." Nope, it's more like (either verbalized or in your mind) "Fuck you, I wasn't speeding, if I wasn't running late already, I'd back my car over you, but I don't want to have to stop again to wash the blood off."

And that's the easy shift.

Try showing up to do a preliminary interview on a murder suspect.

If they're innocent of the murder, they may cooperate. They may say "fuck you, call my lawyer", or shoot you, because you might find the 100 kilos of heroin in the spare bedroom being sorted and bagged by illegal aliens you had smuggled into the country for just that purpose. But the crime doesn't always resemble the reaction. They may just shoot because there's an outstanding speeding ticket that wasn't ever paid. And, that's just the innocent people.

If they're guilty, that changes the playing field, sort of. Some think they can talk their way out of anything. Some don't. And when they realize that the conversation is going towards "you have the right to remain silent", out comes Uncle Glock to finish the conversation.

I, by no means, am implying that any of it is right. Law enforcement, rent a cops, and... well, whatever the TSA is suppose to be (we are not law enforcement, but we are the government, and you surrendered your rights the moment you thought about buying a plane ticket, you terrorist scum). They all pick and choose the laws the enforce. And frequently enough to make the news every day if you look for it, they just plain make up the laws. Yes, you are allowed to film on a public street. You need model releases if it's for commercial purposes. And no, anyone at any level (outlined at the beginning of this paragraph) cannot just decide "Fuck you, you can't do that. I'm going to smash your shit and arrest you for whatever I feel like, after I get done kicking you and your girlfriend a few dozen times. That'll teach you to talk back to me." Ok, they may not say all those words, but by about the 5th swift kick into your ribs, or trying to kick your head like a soccer ball, the implication is there.

And no, nothing that we can say or whine about is going to make a bit of difference. There's one route that will change it, and that is significant change. But I am not advocating the change that can be implied, because those who start it will not survive to see the end of it.

Does anyone know of an iphone or android app that automatically uploads video to a remote server while it is being taken? Therefore things like smashing a phone would be useless, as it would already be publicly available.

If you can't trust the police, how can you trust the cloud? Back it up to your own computer, which should ideally create a torrent automatically...

I think the cloud is safer, actually. In a case like this it doesn't matter, but if you're recording police misconduct occurring at your own home, they're likely to destroy and/or confiscate all your electronic equipment. They can't take extrajudicial action to get at information held by large multinational companies; this is the police we're talking about, not

Yet another example of a government agent stomping on the Constitution. What type of country has this become? One where the government can track, monitor, record, and harass citizens, yet citizens can't even record a public event without being treated as terrorists. Just disgusting.

Now they should sue and we can all pay for it with an ever increasing tax burden.

>"Why does everyone have to bring up the Constitution in cases like this??"

Oh let's see:

Freedom of assemblyFreedom of pressFreedom from unreasonable search or seizureRight to due processFreedom from unusual punishment

Stuff like that seems to apply in such cases, even if it is also covered by other laws that protect from police brutality or destruction of private property. ALL our rights spring from the Constitution.

We are free, except for the millions of people who are behind bars; in fact, the US imprisons more people than any other country, including China, and the only countries to even imprison more people than the US were the USSR and Nazi Germany. As if that were not shameful enough, we also imprison a higher proportion of our black population than South Africa did during Apartheid.

The criticism and complaints against these officers is completely justified... they should face charges at a formal hearing for this... but a blanket statement about "we hate cops" makes you look silly and juvenile. Government... federal, state, and local... has become far too powerful. But they're not yet the Nazis you and other perpetually outraged Slashdotters make them out to be.

When these incidents happen, how often do the pigs face real punishment? That doesn't mean desk duty, or leave with pay. I mean life in prison, the kind of thing the rest of us would do for blatantly murdering someone then trying to cover it up by assaulting and threatening witnesses.

You sure seem to have assumed a whole lot of shit about me based on nothing.

For all you know I'm an african-american lesbian. So fuck off.

Of course, I agree with you about supporting fundamental liberties for everyone. I'm just rather irked at your bullshit assumption that I somehow ever supported doing anything like this to anyone you prejudicial fuck. The only one in this thread ever talking about this having ever been ok is you. Don't go accusing me of what bigger assholes than you (surprising that such could exist) have said.

He probably took out the memory card after they put the smashed phone back in his pocket.But who knows? If the reporter screwed up facts like 'SIM cards don't store video', who knows what other facts they got wrong in this story.

Once again, news reporting appears to the be the most technically clueless profession. (and if this video actually exists, I guess the police would be the second).

If there's enough of the phone to recover images, then the cops have made their situation worse. It looks like that's the case, but it's from an SD card, not a SIM card - given how Sprint's phones work.

Another point - how about apps that instantly stream to an offsite location? The cops would still be thwarted, and still have to pay.

Hopefully the cops end up paying tons of cash to replace the phones, along with whatever criminal penalties come from their actions.

I thought this too. Looking into it though, how do we actually do it? The only way I can think of that's convenient on a Symbian phone is stickam, then viewing it on a computer already running somewhere... which isn't great. You want the whole thing to be as quick as pressing one button

1. Establish that it's perfectly legal to film the police doing their job in a public place.2. Make it a crime, punishable with serious jail time, for a police officer to intimidate a photographer, confiscate their camera, or return the camera without the images.

This law should have no exception for "accidents" like phones being smashed or evidence being lost --- any more than we tolerate "accidents" involving children being lost or killed. Police should know that the minute they confiscate a private individual's camera they are putting their careers and their freedom in the balance should anything go wrong.

Of course none of this would be workable; if Congress actually passed any kind of law it would almost certainly protect the police and not the citizenry; and half of Slashdot would probably object to this being a Federal law rather than a state law or would propose that we adopt a technological/market solution instead.

It is in at least the states of Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland.

It's legal to film and record police in Maryland. The case mentioned in your link went to the Maryland Circuit Court for Harford County and was ruled [scribd.com] not a violation of the law. "A law enforcement officer has no reasonable expectation of privacy in encounters with citizens in public places"

There's nothing that should be specific to police officers. Any public servant is accountable to the public for their actions, and has no claim of privacy from the public eye. This needs to be cast in stone, no matter which role the servant is in.

It should be a crime, punishable with jail time, for an officer to intimidate anyone who is not committing a crime.

Law enforcement should defer to the citizen, not the other way around. An officer should not use their power to impede a citizen without damn good reason, and they should beg the pardon of the citizen if they are mistaken.

I've never understood why law enforcement officials are given special deferment when they say accidentally kill someone. I would expect the opposite. I would expect that i

Seriously.. 3 cops and it sounds like each of them emptied their clips in a matter of 5 seconds or less.

Cops (and, really, pretty much everyone with a gun) are trained that, once you reach the decision to fire - which is not supposed to be taken lightly - you keep firing until you're absolutely sure that the target is incapacitated. At that point, the safety of the target is simply no longer a concern. It's not like they shoot once and then check if the guy is not reaching for the gun anymore, and if he is, they shoot again and repeat. Nor do they shoot to wound.

In this case, if all three cops saw something done by the guy in the car that was clearly aggressive (e.g. he was raising a gun?), then it would make perfect sense for each one of them to start firing at the same time, and to fire several times.

Every year, the dollar is worth 95% of what it was worth the previous year. That's 0.95*(value of previous year).

After 100 years, the value of a dollar is equal to (original price)*0.95^100. 1*0.95^100 = 0.00592052922, or about 0.6% of what it was worth originally.

It's funny how exponential trends work, and how counterintuitive the results are. But inflation really is the opposite of the classic "double the amount of rice on every square of the chessboard" analogy. Yes, "mild" inflation CAN mean you lose over 99% of your value in 100 years.

He just posts his lies and if anyone actually points out the inconsistencies in his arguments he runs away into another thread:-)

In the above post he compiled a variation of those lies: pointing out commodities bubbles (which were mostly caused by physical shortages on a finite planet with growing population, well before "money printing" began after the 2008 crisis) while not pointing out deflationary forces that balance out price bubbles. You can see how real aggregate inflation looks like, in the links I provided above.

His motivation seems to be that he's all invested into the current gold bubble (no diversification? Yikes...), and wants to see it continue. He will accept no rational arguments that point out the inconsistencies in his belief system.

Its events like this that are the reason I have Qik on my phone. I've never used it, but give me 15 seconds to get started and I'll be uploading live video to a remote server. Go ahead and take my phone. Its already in the cloud.

Sounds just like every run-in I've ever had with police. I've even videotaped the cops beating the shit out of my friends. The only thing that ever amounted to was my friends not being convicted of Obstruction of Justice, Disobeying a Police Officer, Resisting Arrest, Interfering with an Investigation. And, maybe a couple cops quit the force.

It was funny when they played the video in court and the Judge looks over at the prosecutor and said, "Don't you hate when that happens? Case dismissed."

But the cops were never convicted of anything. Not even the local lawyers in my town want to take on the cops.

p.s. I remember the time a cop, with his foot stuck in my door over a noise complaint, grabbed my arm and said, "That's it, you're under arrest." I yanked my hand back and said, "Fuck you, get off my property, you're trespassing." Oh there was also the time that same cop just busted into my house (also a noise complaint) with his arm extended pointing a can of pepper spray at me... I ran into the kitchen where there was like 20 people. The cop eventually put away the pepper spray and walked away... knowing he would have sprayed everyone. Oh there's also the time a cop said I did a 360 on my motorcycle going 50mph, and when I stopped put my hands on my head, and sat down Indian-style, he beat me repeatedly with his baton.. so obviously I got a resisting arrest charge... dismissed, thankfully. Oh and a few months ago when I got a ticket for driving on a learner's permit with no licensed driver... though there was a licensed driver in the car, and I haven't had a learners permit for 15 years... I appealed that and.... inexplicably, lost. I could go on and on.

It definitely is and assuming that this is a somewhat accurate description of what happened, the police officers involved could easily find themselves behind bars for witness tampering, destruction of evidence amongst other things. And police officers do get sent to prison from time to time for this sort of behavior.

It definitely is and assuming that this is a somewhat accurate description of what happened, the police officers involved could easily find themselves behind bars for witness tampering, destruction of evidence amongst other things. And police officers do get sent to prison from time to time for this sort of behavior.

Every once in a great while when there is a massive public outcry and there are no other politically viable alternatives, yes, they do. This is far, far less often than it should happen. Of the instances of police overstepping their bounds I have heard of exactly one police officer being fired, and that was for a clear case of murder that was committed on camera and the victim was a homeless person who was well known and liked. The officer's excuse was that the man (who was known as 'the woodcarver' by locals) had a knife, and he did not put it down in the 2.5 seconds between the time the officer told him to and the time he fired. The man made no threatening gesture with the knife.

The problem is that we have a fascist minority in the populace, and a fascist majority in government, who believe that government employees, police in particular, are above the law. For a shockingly high percentage of the population, the whole concept of law and order is absent or incomprehensible, and instant subservience and obedience to the uniform is substituted instead.

This belief is, unsurprisingly, strongest amongst the police themselves. So they break the law, what are you going to do? Call the police?

You cant even get a prosecutor to file charges against them with clear proof of the crime. I remember one prosecutor that did try to discharge her duties faithfully by prosecuting a cop, and found herself unable to function in her position at all because the entire damn police force made a point to louse up her cases and refuse to work with her. Every time someone says 'it's just a few bad apples' I have to think back to her. It seems closer to the truth, today, to say as Adam Kokesh recently did "it's a few bad apples that give the other 5% of cops a bad name."

Now to be fair, police pay is relatively low, and the ability to kill and/or abuse their fellow citizens with impunity is the only clearly exceptional perk they get. Given that, it shouldnt be a surprise that the bad-apples come to outnumber the good ones over time.

I've known some very good people who were cops - note the past tense. They had a very rough time of it. I also knew a guy that told everyone he was going to join the police so he could kill someone and get away with it when he was in high school. Last I saw him he was wearing a blue uniform and a big smile.

Getting rid of bad cops is probably going to continue to be an intractable problem until and unless we as a nation realise that police should, yes, be held to very high standards - but they should also be paid commensurately for their services. No, poor pay in no way justifies lawlessness in the uniform - but if the police were actually held to the law, most of them would be in prison in short order and the people that we really want to take their place will be somewhere else, making more money and dealing with less stress.

No, poor pay in no way justifies lawlessness in the uniform - but if the police were actually held to the law, most of them would be in prison in short order and the people that we really want to take their place will be somewhere else, making more money and dealing with less stress.

Poor pay?? I will never understand why this misconception cannot be stamped out. That concept was true decades ago, but not today. Many Miami Police Beach Patrol Officers make well over $100K [miamibeachexposed.com].

Here in the US we fought a very bloody and painful war which all the oddsmakers gave us absolutely 0 chance of winning to gain our independence, and one of the major reasons we did that was because of warrantless searches. We have a fourth amendment for a reason. If a law is impossible to enforce without warrantless searches (laws attempting to regulate peaceful private behaviour generally are) then it's a bad law and it shouldnt be enforced anyway.

Reliable statistics would obviously be very difficult to generate, if you can find anything approximating such I would love to see it.

But just to be clear, I am not in any way implying that 95% of cops in this country are actively corrupt as in going out shooting people just because they can or the like. What I *am* saying seems to be true, is that 95% of cops WILL comply with the 'blue line' nonsense and refuse to do their duty and/or actively obstruct justice to defend the bad cops. I have seen how this is deeply encultured in our law enforcement officers, and even though I can understand and even sympathise with those officers, the fact is that it is THOSE officers - not the handful of hard-core bad apples, but the masses of 'thin blue line' believers who may do little or nothing wrong otherwise, that make the problem so intractible.

Think about the story behind this article. From reading both the links, it seems that it was mainly a single policeman who was the active culprit here, committing a number of crimes under color of law (assault, battery, destruction of property, evidence-tampering, just at a glance) and it might be tempting to jump out and claim he is just one bad apple and it doesnt reflect on the rest of the force. But there were a large number of police on the scene to witness his crime!

It was the large number who stood by and did nothing effective to stop the 'bad apple' - who in a true law and order state would have placed HIM under arrest on the spot, but who, in our world, will instead look the other way and claim afterwards not to have seen the incident - without those supposedly good cops to enable him, the bad cop wouldnt last long at all. That was what I was trying to point out.

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed." - Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177.

Have you ever been in a high adrenaline situation that ended in you shooting and killing someone? Have you ever voluntarily ended someones life? Have you had someone film you whilst you do this? Unless the answer to all of the above is "yes", how about you keep your damning judgements to yourself.

If the police officer can't handle these situations, I highly suggest they go for an alternate career. Maybe as a garbageman or something that shouldn't involve weapons. Seriously, it might be an extremely stressfull situation when he's shooting at the alleged drug dealer, who allegedly shot back at them. But when this innocent bystander, only being guilty of having a camera, gets guns shoved up in his face, then you aren't fit to take care of justice. If your job as a public servant can't take the scrutiny of someone video taping you as you perform your job, then you have no business being in the line of duty. Please, let the people be able to weed out the bad cops. We need the good ones. So your arguments are basically not relevant, as criticism isn't dependant of having to be in the persons shoes.

They don't (for the most part) carry them in the UK either where I grew up. I still feel a little nervous about the RCMP carrying. Would I feel any less nervous if I was allowed to carry? Not really. More guns just means more opportunity to get shot - accidentally or otherwise.

Regular Joes who carry are actually on average much better shots than the cops. We're also statistically less likely to commit a crime than a police officer, and all the other firearm carriers I've met have a much better understanding of their state laws than the police (at least in the areas of law that have come up during conversations with police).